A test of varna other than by birth

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Sravna,

I sincerely feel that you have perhaps not understood my post; may be it is the shortcoming on my part. What I wanted to emphasize was that allopathy stands out, even today, as the medical system par excellence and even the doctors practising the other systems rush to an allopathic hospital/doctor the moment they have a chest pain. I did not say that allopathic doctors are immortal.

I also did not say anything relating to the varna or selection by aptitude in the above post - only that even the ayurveda developed by our ancients is deficient and is not as good as allopathy. Let me hasten to add that allopathy is also not perfect but it stands head and shoulders above all the other systems.

As to whether ayurveda has a "holistic" approach or not, it is itself a different topic and I am not going into it now.

Hope my pov is clear enough now.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Let me try to explain my pov and maybe the rationale behind it. I would classify the approaches into broadly: holistic and cause & effect. You will find abundance of material describing ayurveda as holistic or its philosophy being, body is one unit. I think at least for now , since we are not going into the argument whether ayurveda is holistic or not, we should take the word of material available on it and consider its approach holistic.

Allopathy on the other hand relies on treating symptoms. You try to uproot the effect. What those people do not understand is one should try to uproot the cause. According to allopathy if you do not possess the symptom you are ok. On the other hand a holistic treatment acts on the principle that the whole needs to be treated and if the whole is treated , the parts can't be faulty and hence is likely to offer a permanent cure.

Also, I did not say that allopathic doctors are immortal but only, if they are not selected on the basis of intelligence they would not shine as much. If all those bright minds put their efforts in understanding ayurveda better, they can make it relevant and useful today.

 

[Vivek_V]

Sri Sangom

Praveen removed part of my post because he probably found it offensive. For that matter, I find a great deal of things you or Nara had said offensive, but to me as long as foul language is not used, its fair part of a discussion. I certainly don't believe that saying your question was not genuine calls for a removal of my reply.

Having said that, I am not blaming Praveen for removed my post. I can understand as a moderator, he may have his rules and I am willing to follow.

But for your pointing to the dharmashastras, let me tell you that what brahmins wrote, did and what role they played in early society can't be summed up easily by one text or what it prescribes. Every scientific progress of society in early days had their work in it - not that it deserves extra credit - it was their position in society. And this is why education (be it even in the modern era) was carried ahead by brahmins in good part.

What I don't understand is the self-hating, self-loathing attitude you seem to carry being a brahmin. You have reduced brahmins and their role to soccery and mantras ("abdacadabra" right?) when clearly any ordinary person can see that in Indian history their role is way beyond this. Personally, and with no hate or disrespect directed to you, do I feel you have a low idea of brahmins or their history.

It doesn't take to disrespect or hate ourselves to respect others, if that is what you are trying.

Regards,
Vivek.

 

[Vivek_V]

Ayurveda and Allopathy are of differrent times.

Comparing Ayruveda with Allopathy is like comparing a schythed chariot to a lambo - they are products of hugely varried eras. What is significant however is that it had its place in its time - which is why texts like Charaka Samhita or Sushruta Samhita were translated to other languages.

What is more important than Ayurveda for me, is their method. Merely having wealth of your grandfather or father doesn't matter, what matters is if you have understood their method to consistently enrich it (and increase it). This is where I feel we haven't gone ahead. But it doesn't mean we need to consider our tradition a rice bag of 50 percent worms. It only means we should try and revive it - in the manner of the Renaissance.

The knowledge of marmam is to my understanding, a real one not ficticious - and clearly people of the past had a method of attaining that knowledge of anatomy. What is important is to understand that method, while keeping the relevance of our search intune with needs of the modern era and its scientific progress.

Has anyone come across the name Vadim Vjazmin?

Regards,
Vivek.